The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.

incorrect. Each edge of the shadow forms a line, the halfway point between the edges forms a line, in fact there are an infinite number of possible lines you can derive from a boundary between light and dark on a sphere.

Pizza Planet knows so little about photography it's hilarious. I wonder why he hasn't addressed the strange pale pixels rising in rectangular shapes above the moon's horizon? After all, everything you see in a photograph must be really there, right?

incorrect. Each edge of the shadow forms a line, the halfway point between the edges forms a line, in fact there are an infinite number of possible lines you can derive from a boundary between light and dark on a sphere.

But the shadow has no edge. It is a gradient.

The gradiant has to start and end somewhere. wherever it does this is what I refer to as the edge.

The line in the op could represent the position where an observer will see the sun with half of it hidden behind the horizon.

Irrelevant. Bendy light exists in both FET and RET, and thus the results would be inaccurate.

The bendy light theory that FET must use is not the same as the refraction in RET. Even so, refraction will cause the illuminated area to be slightly larger, but it will still appear straight when viewed from the right angle. The results would however have inaccuracies that are consistent, so RET based sunrise/sunset time calculators could take this into account, producing accurate times for sunrises and sunsets.

incorrect. Each edge of the shadow forms a line, the halfway point between the edges forms a line, in fact there are an infinite number of possible lines you can derive from a boundary between light and dark on a sphere.

But the shadow has no edge. It is a gradient.

The gradiant has to start and end somewhere. wherever it does this is what I refer to as the edge.

The line in the op could represent the position where an observer will see the sun with half of it hidden behind the horizon.

Irrelevant. Bendy light exists in both FET and RET, and thus the results would be inaccurate.

The bendy light theory that FET must use is not the same as the refraction in RET. Even so, refraction will cause the illuminated area to be slightly larger, but it will still appear straight when viewed from the right angle. The results would however have inaccuracies that are consistent, so RET based sunrise/sunset time calculators could take this into account, producing accurate times for sunrises and sunsets.

Sure. We have a circular lit portion for round earth that covers slightly more than half the planet which can appear straight from the right angle. And we have a circular lit portion for flat earth that covers slightly more than only a quarter of the earth. Lets start gathering data points to see which is right.

It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom. These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes. Thank you for the support.

It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.

They do in the picture. They happen to also be a useful measuring unit for something on a computer screen which your gradient was, and therefore my analysis is valid.

So what do you suggest? Flying up into space, taking a photograph of the earth and then zooming in on the pixels to try and find some mystical shadow-border? This idea is absurd, and I maintain that the argument falls apart because of it.

It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom. These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes. Thank you for the support.

It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.

They do in the picture. They happen to also be a useful measuring unit for something on a computer screen which your gradient was, and therefore my analysis is valid.

So what do you suggest? Flying up into space, taking a photograph of the earth and then zooming in on the pixels to try and find some mystical shadow-border? This idea is absurd, and I maintain that the argument falls apart because of it.

We can measure light levels quite well on the surface. I'm not sure why a trip to space is necessary.

It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom. These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes. Thank you for the support.

It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.

They do in the picture. They happen to also be a useful measuring unit for something on a computer screen which your gradient was, and therefore my analysis is valid.

So what do you suggest? Flying up into space, taking a photograph of the earth and then zooming in on the pixels to try and find some mystical shadow-border? This idea is absurd, and I maintain that the argument falls apart because of it.

We can measure light levels quite well on the surface. I'm not sure why a trip to space is necessary.

Well, assuming bendy light is consistent, then if we get consistent inaccuracies we can then account for bendy light. As for clouds, we'll just have to test on sunny days.

It's been proven inconsistent by virtue of not affecting stars.

or the angular width of the moon. Interestingly, in all this bendy light discussion has no flat earther realized that something has to account for why the moon always appears the same width. Due to distance the moon should appear smaller. Bendy light actually compounds this problem due to the fact that light would have to travel even further along an arc rather than in a straight line.

Well, assuming bendy light is consistent, then if we get consistent inaccuracies we can then account for bendy light. As for clouds, we'll just have to test on sunny days.

It's been proven inconsistent by virtue of not affecting stars.

or the angular width of the moon. Interestingly, in all this bendy light discussion has no flat earther realized that something has to account for why the moon always appears the same width. Due to distance the moon should appear smaller. Bendy light actually compounds this problem due to the fact that light would have to travel even further along an arc rather than in a straight line.

Then this probably accounts for the huge variation in the apparent size of the moon, something that many people will have observed:

No...You can call it the 'Rim continent ' if you want, but the bases are maintained by the Australian Government, as far as I can tell. The department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Antarctic Division To be precise.

By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

Why are you so mad? I merely asked you to refrain from arguing my points for me. Create your own argument rather than hijacking someone elses, please.

Failure to perform proper research, and failure to provide proper evidence makes you about as helpful to my argument as a lead weight. Though it certainly puts you on par with the average FE debater here.

Lastly, I considered the debate on the picture of the moon as merely tangential to the argument in this thread. Hence why I asked you to make a different thread for it.

By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

Why are you so mad?

Because you called me an idiot. Reasonable grounds to be annoyed, I think.

Quote

Failure to perform proper research, and failure to provide proper evidence makes you about as helpful to my argument as a lead weight.

Er... what research should I do to ask another poster a question in order to assess his understanding of a topic, and what research should I do to back up my (true) statement that I could not see the pink line?Tell the guy who asked about the stars and the pink line to make a new thread, not me.

By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

Why are you so mad?

Because you called me an idiot. Reasonable grounds to be annoyed, I think.

Quote

Failure to perform proper research, and failure to provide proper evidence makes you about as helpful to my argument as a lead weight.

Er... what research should I do to ask another poster a question in order to assess his understanding of a topic, and what research should I do to back up my (true) statement that I could not see the pink line?Tell the guy who asked about the stars and the pink line to make a new thread, not me.

Alas, while Zeteticists stand shoulder to shoulder against the evil of untruths, globites cannot even agree whose side they are on, let alone which theories they back. You should come over to FE - the side of reason!

By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

Why are you so mad?

Because you called me an idiot. Reasonable grounds to be annoyed, I think.

Quote

Failure to perform proper research, and failure to provide proper evidence makes you about as helpful to my argument as a lead weight.

Er... what research should I do to ask another poster a question in order to assess his understanding of a topic, and what research should I do to back up my (true) statement that I could not see the pink line?Tell the guy who asked about the stars and the pink line to make a new thread, not me.

Alas, while Zeteticists stand shoulder to shoulder against the evil of untruths, globites cannot even agree whose side they are on, let alone which theories they back. You should come over to FE - the side of reason!

Alas, while Zeteticists stand shoulder to shoulder against the evil of untruths, globites cannot even agree whose side they are on, let alone which theories they back. You should come over to FE - the side of reason!

Man you need to Lurk more. I know you posted this being funny, but damn. You are missing out on some major lines in the sand drawn between FE Proponents. You guys cant agree about the most fundamental things. Light, Gravity/gravitation, size, basic map, navigation, tided, the moon, the sun, I could go on.

This is a prime example of the malfunctioning FE mind. A couple RE guys start arguing with eachother and you jump right to that they cant figure out what theory to back. Maybe its possible that you were looking in a mirrow when you saw those things.

Logged

Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?

Pretending that you are not aware that if you view the line from the same plane that it is bisecting the sphere will make it appear straight, is intellectually dishonest

A straight line can only have one common point with a sphere if it's touching it, or two if it's intersecting it. Pretending that anything that's projected on a sphere in its entirety might be a straight line is not so much intellectually dishonest, but simply unintellectual.

And I see you've failed to provide a map, or other evidence to demonstrate the contrary.

The map (or, rather, the closest you'll ever get to a map, seeing how it's entirely impossible of creating a map of any other scale than 1:1) happens to be in the FAQ. It's fairly simple to find it. Then again, you've found the search function baffling. Let me know if you need any help locating the FAQ. I'll be happy to help.

I see your grammar is at slight fault here. It's okay, I'm not native either. You'll be up to speed in no time.You see, you can't really say "yet again" when you refer to the first object in a group.Now, to answer your question: No.

Lastly, how are a few Gravitational Anomalies comparable to an inability to produce a proper map?

Oh, yeah, that's a good point. No, wait, my mistake, it actually isn't. A universe that would be expanding several times as fast as it is now, and orbits that would cause all planets to crash into the Sun by now are easily comparable with an inability to produce a map. Note that it is impossible to produce a map, as explained many times here before. On the other hand, it's also quite impossible for the Earth to be currently inside the Sun, which is what the RE gravitation model suggests.

You didn't even address my claim on why there are no stars? I take it you concede that point as well?

Ah, so many assumptions, and so many of them wrong.You see, I'm in no way obliged to address any of your claims; and since you're acting like an inconsiderate twat, I'm abusing this liberty. Think what you may of it.

The link you've provided shows that purple (nb. not pink, and definitely not magic pink) borders would appear on a white background. I'm afraid that purple on white isn't very relevant to magic pink on black.